I’m not going to say anything about morality, anything about theology, or anything about tradition…. I’ll be making a philosophical argument, with some appeal to social science, largely to get at a public policy purpose of marriage. The question that I want to ask and then answer is, what is marriage from a policy perspective? What is the state’s interest in marriage? How does the state define marriage? How should the state define marriage, and why?

Below is the full speech, followed by a Q&A that was both challenging and refreshingly respectful. If you know someone who doesn’t understand the reasons for opposing a change in the definition of marriage, this is the lecture to share.

A summary from Anderson's response to the second question on why this matters:

What we know is that marriage is the institution that, when it’s stable, it protects children from poverty, it increases the likelihood [that] those children will experience social mobility, it protects children from committing crime, and it prevents the state from having to pick up the pieces in the form of a welfare program or a police program.

So more or less everything that you could care about (if you care about social justice and you care about limited government, if you care about the poor and you care about freedom) is better served by having a healthy marriage culture—a civil society institution that takes care of raising that next generation—than by having the government try to pick up the pieces of a broken marriage culture.

Comments

I have to agree that much of what is stated in terms of marriage and family is true. But there are other mitigating conditions that also effect a person's success, not just if he had a mom and dad. There are health issues that can impact an individual negatively to the point where success is outside of his reach. Such things as undiagnosed chronic conditions that impact that individual's ability to perform to expected and required levels in society. Since such things go under the radar of the medical establishment they are not included in any studies or statistics. Case in point. An individual is born with a rare condition where the small intestine is not capable of properly processing food so that they are in effect being starved of vital nutrients and proteins are not properly broken down and vitamins and vital nutrients are not being delivered to the parts of the body that need it. Full stomachs, no apparent cause of this malady, but the individual is in effect on the edge of starvation. You will not find a single entry of this condition in the medical publications, but it exists. The impact on that individual is profound in that his learning is severely stunted and thus his competitive edge is literally removed. Being tossed into a competitive capitalistic environment he already has three strikes against him. But it is not only the intellect that is stunted...he shows problems when it comes to physical prowess as well. Physical fatigue at a level that is perfectly acceptable to the medical community is present in such an individual. So, while what is said here that a child without a proper family of one mother and one father is less likely to succeed in life, the lack in this department is by no means the only reason for failure and high cost to society for such failures. It has been stated that provision of proper medical care is not a human right, though it has been argued that having a mother and a father is...well, you might come up with an argument to support such a view, but that simply means that if you happen to suffer from what I just described, you are just out of luck because the arguments that are being pushed here for a culture that has an inordinate obsession on the one factor that contributes to the success of its members to the exclusion of others simply leaves too many holes in the social safety net for people to fall through. For everything, including factors of human success and flourishing, there are exceptions. Allow me to pose a moral question. Should we simply ignore these exceptions because they do not serve the majority of the community and thus give us the greatest bragging rights for the success of our model? Is that what the moral project is all about...hanging trophies on our mantle? If it is that, why should one think of it as a virtue and not a vice?

We can't make public policy regarding ANY issue based upon the circumstances of the rare exceptions. Nothing would ever get accomplished.

Plus, there's the fact that these two examples are not remotely equal. People exist without this rare condition you're describing. But excepting Christ, there has never been a human being in the history of the world who was conceived apart from having a mother and a father.

Even if our technology got to the point were we were able to grow human beings entirely in labs instead of in the womb, we'd still need a male and a female to first create that human being. It's just a biological reality that we cannot escape.

Yes...I do understand your position on this as it is the very same one that has been expounded on by Greg for years now. It does not change the fact that some will fall through the cracks of the system. Of course we do not live in a perfect world. But what if...the problem that I outlined is not as uncommon as all that. What if it is far more prevalent than anyone actually knows it is? What if a whole segment of the population is suffering from this, but they are completely unaware of the fact and the reasons that our culture and society is being held back is because nothing is being done about it? What if the government is as blissfully unaware of that fact as everyone else? What if it exists in epidemic proportions without anyone knowing about it? We just chalk it up to people having various levels of ability to be successful instead of identifying it as a very real and prevalent problem? What if the reason that no one is even considering the possibility of such a thing being the case is because they are far to engrossed in chasing the current version of the American dream to be bothered with that?

I know that is a lot of what-ifs, but I never claimed that reality is an uncomplicated project.

Hi Louis Kuhelj, not out of luck, did you forget the 2nd greatest commandment? This is why there will always be poor, sick, downtrodden among us, Jesus even said so. I get the sense from a quick read that you want to advocate here an enforcement of the 2nd greatest commandment by governmental activism...is that so?

"What if the government is as blissfully unaware of that fact as everyone else?"

So what if? It is not goverments job to help, this is just a way for an individual to say go, be fed, be happy, it's not my responsibility...I pay my taxes.

Case in point. An individual is born with a rare condition where the small intestine is not capable of properly processing food so that they are in effect being starved of vital nutrients and proteins are not properly broken down and vitamins and vital nutrients are not being delivered to the parts of the body that need it. Full stomachs, no apparent cause of this malady, but the individual is in effect on the edge of starvation. You will not find a single entry of this condition in the medical publications, but it exists.

Not sure how your comment relates to the topic but I have to ask you...

Thanks for posting this. I also watched his interview on Piers Morgan...a great example for staying cool under fire. Like everything of value, I'll have to watch it over and over in order to understand it to the point of being able to make the case myself.

I agree Jan, I watched the speech video and wasnt aware of the lions den he was in til I watched the q&a. Nearly every questioner made it clear right off the top that they were not there to listen or be open to his presentation.

I read some of the reports about the controversy at the Stanford campus prior to the event. Here is a paragraph from one article that quotes from a letter opposing the intended censorship being demanded by lgbt groups.

They couldn't intimidate beforehand, so after the speech, they got their chance to ask questions, didn't really engage the argument, or were really willing to engage his questions that were meant to expose the special pleading.

What we know is that marriage is the institution that, when it’s stable, it protects children from poverty, it increases the likelihood [that] those children will experience social mobility, it protects children from committing crime, and it prevents the state from having to pick up the pieces in the form of a welfare program or a police program.

So more or less everything that you could care about (if you care about social justice and you care about limited government, if you care about the poor and you care about freedom) is better served by having a healthy marriage culture—a civil society institution that takes care of raising that next generation—than by having the government try to pick up the pieces of a broken marriage culture.

Although I think he mocks, brgulker is not far off from expressing the serious nature of the marraige vow in his conclusion.

A man and woman come before God and man publicly and promise before all, to be faithful unto death. This is more than a social contract yet the penal threat for breaking it is nothing...literally...and even encouraged by some in society. It didn't used to be so.

The fact is that if the churches were doing their job, they wouldn't need to beg and crawl to the government to forcibly prohibit what they are unable to persuade people not to do.

I am a Christian evangelist, yet I feel the stance of most Christians opposing gay marriage is a useless distraction to our efforts to show the love of Christ to a world desperate for salvation.

How can the 2-5% of the population that are gay threaten the rest of us? How can their marriage undermine our own? It is well known that marriage adds stability to society. This should apply to gays as well.

Jay Michaelson shows in his book God vs Gay that all instances where the bible condemns homosexualism concern child molestation and promiscuity that usually accompanied such behavior in the pagan Greco-Roman world. Gay marriage totally obviates these problems.

Furthermore, there are many forms of marriage that are considered legal in the USA today that violate one or more cherished principles of various church denominations. Should Catholics start crusading to prohibit marriage after divorce, which their church views as outright adultery?

This entire argument is a useless distraction from the true spiritual work Christians are called upon to do. If we did our job effectively enough, marriages would be strengthened and we wouldn't be able to scapegoat the G-BLT community for the shockingly high rates of divorce, pornography, child abuse, and adultery that mar conventional Christian marriages.

2. Same-Sex Marriage Won't Be Enough: "Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist."

And again, be sure to watch the video where the consequences are explained.

OK. I find this new information disturbing enough that I have removed my blog post supporting gay marriage. Instead I have added these two pieces:
https://www.academia.edu/7962010/Spanish_Inquisition_Sinks_the_Spanish_Armada_
https://www.academia.edu/7962176/Catholic_Evolutionists_-_Proclaiming_the_Real_Presence_in_the_Eucharist_while_Denying_the_Real_Past_in_Genesis_

This is an idea I've been kicking around for a while. Perhaps the Protestant world is partly responsible for the proliferation of militant gay culture. The reason I say this is because when the Protestant world rejected celibate religious orders of the Catholic and Orthodox Christian variety, it left people with same sex attraction no recourse to assuage their loneliness apart from gay sexual liaisons.

It is very possible that some people have an inbuilt aversion to the opposite sex, but in our culture that affords them no chance for community that isn't sexualized, the only chance they have to avoid loneliness is by getting seduced into a gay sexual union.

We're talking about an ongoing living community, not a once a week meeting at a home cell!

I think the Protestant world should soul search about this. Rejecting celibate religious orders might have been a big mistake by the Protestants, like their rejection of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. I understand that Anglicans retained some monastic orders though.

Protestant life is characterized by fierce individualism and extreme competition, all of which undermine the notion of community as seen at the end of Acts 2&4. I feel certain it has contributed to the acceleration of militant homosexualism and to the overall vulgarization of society.